Raf

Took a deep breath after Sunday morning's insomnia and decided to take a fresh look at this thread. I still believe it's not adding to the conversation to say "look, scriptures" when we're talking about whether something actually took place in history. That said, the scriptures Mark cited do address why this is an interesting topic. Personally I think Paul is being a little hard on himself here. You are not "most to be pitied" if Jesus was not resurrected. Rather, you're in the same boat as everyone else. That's nothing to be ashamed of or pitied over. Now, none of this addresses the question of the thread: Did the resurrection happen? Paul says Jesus rose again "according to the scriptures," which is an odd thing to say considering (a) he supposedly had this on good personal authority and (b) he didn't have the gospels, so to what scripture is he referring? There are no predictions of the Messiah's resurrection in the Old Testament. There are some verses that can be hijacked so we can claim they are about his resurrection (some so-called "types" that have nothing to do with Jesus but are retconned by Christians to be prophecies), But no scripture says the Messiah will be raised three days after he is killed. Remember how Matthew says "Out of Egypt have I called my son" was fulfilled when Christ came back from Egypt to settle in Nazareth? Except that verse in the Old Testament has nothing whatsoever to do with the Messiah; just got retconned into a Messianic prophecy. Just like "A virgin shall be with child" was actually not a Messianic prophecy (and did not refer to a virgin in the modern sense of the word). So what scriptures? Also, why highlight the scriptures when you can highlight the eyewitnesses? Cephas! Cephas saw him! And the 12! So Paul goes on to mention them: He's seen of Cephas, then of the 12 (which is where the whole "when did Judas die" debate comes into play. My take: The story of Judas' betrayal and suicide had not been invented yet. Paul was unaware that he was setting up an "apparent contradiction" here by saying "the Twelve". Another argument for another time). Then 500 people see him at once. At ONCE! And NONE of the gospel writers found this event worth mentioning! And some of them are still alive as Paul writes, which is why he names them and cites their testimony with specifics and... what? He doesn't name them? Then how is anyone supposed to check on the story? This is supposedly a piece of evidence used by apologists like William Lane Craig to prove the resurrection happened. 500 eye witnesses would have called Paul out as a liar! WOULD THEY? Here's why they wouldn't: He tells the story decades later in another city and provides no names for anyone to follow up on. Et voila! Instant validation. Who's going to challenge Paul about something that happened 20-30 years ago a thousand miles away? Please. So after the 500, he appears to James. Ah, a name we can check out -- assuming he's not talking about the James who died in Acts but the other one, the Lord's brother. And then the apostles (wait, aren't the apostles and the twelve the same people? Maybe he's talking about an expanded group: like, all the 12 are apostles, but not all apostles are the 12). So in terms of things we can check out, we have: Cephas "The 12" (minus whoever was dead at that point) James Other apostles. The 500 are of no value as evidence because they are not named and there's a good case to be made this never happened. None of the gospel writers found this earth shattering event worth mentioning. It would be like, like... it would be like if Jesus raised his friend from the dead after he was dead four days, and only ONE of the gospel writers found it worth mentioning... 50 years later. No way. Notice Paul doesn't mention the women. That story hadn't been invented yet. The men on the road to Emmaus? We don't get the courtesy of their names from Luke. No way to check them out. Apologists tend to treat every CLAIM as truthful testimony, and draw conclusions on that basis. It is something they would NEVER, EVER in a MILLION YEARS accept from the devotees of any other holy book. Joseph Smith had three witnesses who said an angel showed them the golden plates from which Smith translated the Book of Mormon. You don't believe that story for a second. But you believe 500 unnamed people saw the resurrected Jesus because Paul said so. So I Corinthians 15 gives us claims, at best. It gives us a handful of people you can ask, some of whom are dead and most of whom are very far away. But they are all reliable believers. Now here's the tricky part: We don't really know what ANY of them would have said. The gospels had not yet been written (you can tell because of how little Paul speaks of Christ's ministry on earth). The post-resurrection stories were not finalized (woman or not, would Paul really have left out Mary Magdalene?) When you think about when I Corinthians was written and when Mark (the first written gospel) was written, something stands out: I Corinthians 15 is actually the FIRST account of the resurrection. And to say its details are sparse is an understatement. Then Mark fills in... not much. An empty tomb, and that's it. It's not until Matthew and Luke come along that the story starts to take shape -- with mutually exclusive details. The women didn't tell anyone. The women told everyone. There was one man at the tomb. No there were two men. And they were angels! The stone was rolled away before anyone got there. No, someone saw it happen. Big earthquake. This is how legends develop. It's not history.

oh well

If you have something to contribute to this conversation, by all means, do so. Simply reminding people that it teaches the resurrection is not contributing to this conversation. It's patronizing, condescending and insulting to those of us who actually have read a scripture or two before you came along. The Bible is not proof of itself. We all know the Bible teaches Jesus rose from the dead. We all know about various theories concerning future resurrections. The question on this thread is, did Jesus really rise from the dead? Quoting the Bible to day he did is like quoting Superman to prove intelligent extraterrestrial life exists. Or like quoting the Quran to prove that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse. Or quoting the Book of Mormon to prove Jesus visited the Americas. These are CLAIMS, and claims don't prove themselves.

Completely unnecessary. Your audience isn't stupid, Mark.

MST3K makes fun of cheesy old movies. She's not IN the cheesy old movies. She's forcing the stranded guy to watch the cheesy old movies.

Your post did not add to the conversation because there is not a person on this thread who is unaware of what the Bible teaches concerning resurrection. Including me.

If i said Jack climbed a beanstalk, and then cited "Mickey and the Beanstalk" for your consideration, it would not add to the conversation. Citing scripture as proof of scripture is circular reasoning. Citing it as if we are unaware of it is condescending and patronizing.

This literally adds nothing to our conversation.

Kinga Forrester is the lady villain on the new MST3K, with Patton Oswalt.

Felicia Day

Bullinger believed in a flat earth. Do you think his proof was qualitative or quantitative? Just curious.

I know who it is but I don't know her name. Is it cheating if I go on netflix, catch a cheesy old movie, and then give you the name after the opening credits?

"AND FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE (ACC 2 THE BIBLE) MANY BELIEVED HAVING SEEN THE RISEN CHRIST (MEN ON ROAD TO EMAUS YADA YADA..)" There is a difference between evidence and a claim. The Bible is not evidence. It is a claim. Who were the two men on the road to Emmaus? We're never told. Why not? How is ANYONE supposed to check out their story decades after it took place when we're not even graced with the names of these two people? This is not history. It's a myth. "AND MANY BELIEVED HAVING SEEN THE 'WITNESS OF THE RESURRECTION -- ALSO CALLED THE TOKEN PROOF WHICH ARE THE MANIFESTATIONS OF HS" You have not once in your life manifested holy spirit. Not a single time. You can SAY that you have, but that is not evidence. It is a claim. And since you've been so deLIGHTful on this thread, allow me to return the courtesy: You faked it. You're kidding yourself into believing some magic force is flowing through you when all that is happening is you're babbling, you're spouting platitudes off the top of your head, and you're convincing yourself miracles are taking place when nothing of the kind is taking place. "- AND ONE OF THOSE IS HEALING/ JEEEEZUS!! GIVE ME A BREAK MAN!" You haven't healed anyone, ever, and you've never seen a miraculous healing. Not once. Why should I believe you have? Because you SAY you have? So what? That's not proof of anything other than your gullibility. "DO U BELIEVE IN "DON'T DO TO OTHERS WHAT U DO NOT WANT THEM TO DO 2 U???" ( A MORAL CREDO ACCEPTED BY MOST RELIGIONS WORLD WIDE???) IF SO---////JUST THINK--- WHAT IF U JOINED THIS FORUM AND SOMEONE CRAWLED UP YOUR PROVERBIAL PUTUTIE??" Don't post stupid things and no one will treat the things you say as stupid. " THE OTHER OPTION IS MORAL ANARCHY AND LIVING IN KUBRICK MOVIE---" No, the other option is, be able to back up what you say, shut up, or just don't be surprised when people call your bluff.

Maybe find a better argument for your position.

Speaking as a moderator: YOU are being rude and it will not be tolerated. If you came here to see what people are saying about Steve, go to the thread about Steve. Speaking as myself: How DARE you invoke Steve's memory to justify your poorly argued position? Lame.

It's neither qualitative evidence nor quantitative. It's a non sequitur. It's like saying "If there's no such thing as Bigfoot, how do you explain bears?" Um. Bears don't prove Bigfoot. But at least bears exist. We have no evidence outside this empty claim that these instant healings happened. If that is good enough for Kata, that's very nice. But I see no reason to take it seriously.

Is he with the KYPD? I mean, NYPD?

Your claims of instant healings right before your eyes would be a tad bit more credible if you were to, say, empty a hospital. Or even a room. Nonetheless, even taking your empty claim at face value, it doesn't prove the resurrection of Jesus.

The whole purpose of the show gave us a five year arc. That it could go on past that time is truly a credit to the writers. But to be honest, I would have lost interest if Flash hadn't come along. It's really been a Flashverse more than an Arrowverse, when you think about it. Arrow is the only series that tried to stay grounded in "reality," such as it was. Not complaining. Just... saying.

Correct

Monroe Cole Jimmy McGinty. You know "Jimmy" Doyle by his more famous nickname.